How was the abridgement done, anyway? Did they pick the first five minutes? The worst five? Did you just watch all the trailers?

No, it was a show that had a surprising amount of footage from the film (probably around 15-20 min in total), which I was watching. I wouldn’t say they picked the worst moments. They even had some of the film’s attempts at humor there.

Watched it last night. Don't have the heart (or the caffeine, I haven't made my coffee yet today) to do a full review. Also missed the first twenty minutes or so due to a screw-up with the captioning devices.

Anyway. Non spoilery comments:

There were a lot of sequences where I could tell they either cut stuff that appeared in the trailers, or added stuff that wasn't in the trailers.

The characters were... kinda one-note. They had potential for depth (particularly Aquaman), but they weren't really given the opportunity to expand.

The Amazons somehow changed a chunk of their look from WW to this movie. Now it's all crop tops and leather bikinis versus, y'know, armour like they had in WW?Spoiler

So. Movie opens with a short clip of Superman, some sort of interview or something. It looks really awful. This is probably from when Henry Cavill had to do reshoots with a moustache, because there's something disgustingly digital about his face. Jump on to 'now' or whatever, in Gotham. We get to meet a Parademon. No reference back to BvS, but I suppose most people who watch JL have probably seen BvS? Due to captions not working I don't know if they said anything like 'I remember this' or whatever.

I also missed the starts of Cyborg and Flash, but I don't think I lost much. Cyborg is pretty much just there to go from 'broody' to 'not broody' and to do technology. Flash is pure comic relief. Which, admittedly, he was actually pretty good at. Cyborg's look... didn't do a whole lot for me. It's blatantly obvious that it was done by the actor wearing a green jumpsuit and they painted it on top of him in the computer. I mean. I get that practical effects for the Cyborg character would've been difficult. I get that they do the exact same thing for Iron Man. But the difference is, you can totally buy that Iron Man is wearing real armour. Cyborg just looks like this... wispy digital figure with a weirdly merged half-human face. Granted, they've been making digital Iron Man armour for nearly 10 years, they've had plenty of time to get pretty good at it. IIRC there was a scene in one of the trailers where an Iron Man style mask drops down over Cyborg's face... I suspect that was cut because it was just too blatant.

Flash... has a few good lines. His really cheesy expressions also work fairly well for the character. His sole moment of character growth though is pretty much 'I can't fight... I can save people though, let's do that'. And... yeah... I guess he's okay? He's not terribly impressive as a character, to be frank. But as part of the movie, he was a highlight.

Aquaman starts the movie out as a grumpy drunk loner. He ends the movie as a somewhat surly surfer dude. Amusingly, the captions device described his weapon as a 'fivedent'. There was a certain amount of promise in the sole Atlantis sequence. It's all vaguely referenced foreshadowing, though. Amber Heard as Mera is good looking, at least. He has enough promise for the Aquaman movie that should come out next year to be OK. At least it's not directed by Zack Snyder.

Wonder Woman barely turns a hair throughout the movie, either. There's some waffle about her not wanting to lead the group, then Batman basically forces her into it by abandoning the gang and leaving her to it.

Superman is resurrected halfway through the movie. There's the usual 'is not himself after he's resurrected' fight. The resurrection itself was ridiculously easy, seeming to basically consist of dropping a Mother Box into the resurrection pond on the Kryptonian ship with Supes' body in there. Flash had to charge up a static electric charge and zap the Mother Box, but that was about it. Superman comes back to himself pretty handily as well. There's zero indication of the black suit, bearded Superman that was hinted at during production.

Powers wise... we had the revelation that Superman is actually as fast as Flash. Barry is doing his thing where he goes into super-speed and everybody is standing still, the other three have tackled Superman, he's running up to rabbit-punch Supes or something... and Supes turns and looks at him. That was a nice moment.

Of course after that we had to have Supes and Flash racing. Later on during the big battle they're trying to save civilians. Some folks are in a truck that's dying, so Barry runs up and literally pushes it away into the distance. Then he looks over to the side, and Superman is carrying an entire apartment block away from the battle. That bit was just so Silver Age I couldn't even.

Amusing scene where Aquaman is all unloading, letting out his feelings, etc. Batman goes 'um' and Aqua realizes he's sitting on the Lasso of Truth. This is probably, more or less, the turning point for the whole 'grouchy drunk loner' to 'surfer dude' transition.

Steppenwolf was... unimpressive. While he was clearly a dangerous opponent to the rest... once Supes entered the game, he was a punching bag. But hey, we got a glimpse of an alien Green Lantern. Albeit a very brief glimpse.

Steppenwolf's end was also extremely contrived. He suddenly starts feeling fear, and the Parademons turn on him? Really? That's how it's going to go? Just like that? He's not smart enough to set it up so the Parademons won't turn on him, because he's supposed to be in control of them? Not even a throwaway line about how they only ultimately obey Darkseid, that Steppenwolf is 'given charge' of them or whatever?

That brings me to...zero mention of Darkseid (that I caught). The only hint towards him was a mention of the 'New Gods', a comment that Steppenwolf would turn worlds into a reflection of his 'home world' (presumably Apokoliops), and... that was about it. No indication of a greater universe. No threats beyond the immediate. At the end of the movie, Batman and Wonder Woman are going into the wreck of Wayne Manor and talking about laying out a table with chairs, and room for more... for what? Why?

Fixes: The harder one would be giving characters more development, but that would entail more thought, and who needs that?

The easiest is probably just throwing in a few lines about Darkseid, having a little exposition about the New Gods versus the Old. They even had a great opportunity for that when they flashed back to Steppenwolf versus Earth, had a bit in there about 'the old Gods themselves fought' or whatever. Could've had a cosmic scene with Apokoliops and a glimpse of Darkseid and his various forces. Keep the New Gods proper in the, er, dark though. You know, the nice guys like Highfather, Orion, Lightray and whatever. This gives you enough foreshadowing and a glimpse of a deeper background to open up the DC Cinematic Universe. If the Justice League is going to protect Earth, they need something to protect Earth *from*. This would also have opened up possibilities for the Green Lanterns, who are a not-insignificant part of the comics.

Quite a few people are pointing out that the ridiculous "bikini armor" came from a male director and the "practical, actual armor" came from a woman director. And the film from the woman director did better.

A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Quite a few people are pointing out that the ridiculous "bikini armor" came from a male director and the "practical, actual armor" came from a woman director. And the film from the woman director did better.

Re the latter: how much of that is male vs female, and how much of that is just Zack Snyder is a hack who doesn't know how to make a good movie? Suicide Squad and WW both did reasonably well; Man of Steel by contrast was mostly just OK, and while BvS made a lot of money it wasn't that great (and oddly enough both are Snyder films).

While it's nice to see a proper superhero ensemble film from DC at last, having wads of heroes does not a movie make. Good plotting, writing, and cinematography do. WW had that. This... not really (though the visuals are impressive enough most of the time).

Also, here is a (probably incomplete) list of movies I very much liked that the internet bandwagon decreed were Bad Movies:

X3 was a total trainwreck ruined by tons of executive meddling among other things. But the point is that there's nothing wrong with liking something bad, but many movie critics do not understand this.

I'd say the point is also that a lot of films that are seen as "bad" aren't, at least not objectively.

Sure, there are some things I would say are objectively bad- like if a film had a fascist message or something. But for the most part, it comes down to what the audience enjoys- to personal taste.

I value a well-constructed plot as much as most people, maybe more- but if a film lacks that, but has other elements that I enjoy (as Batman v Superman does), it can still come out ahead, overall.

That said, I agree with you about most reviewers being garbage. I enjoyed all the other movies you listed, to varying degrees. But many critics focus on one thing: either the technical aspects of the movie or ignore those in favor of the "cool moments" or getting wraped in a a plot so convoluted, they think it's "cerebral." They either can't or won't analyze a movie on multiple levels.

I'd say that there's probably still a degree of genre snobiness towards superhero films in general. I'm just guessing here, but I think Marvel escapes the harshest criticisms in part because its films are usually light and fluffy-sometimes too much so-so it gets point for "not taking itself too seriously", ie, knowing its place as a series of campy, silly genre flicks.

DC's films are in a niche where they are not good enough (or well-promoted enough) to qualify as "great films" like The Dark Knight, but too serious to fall into "Escapist fun that doesn't take itself too seriously."

I will say, I am way out of the loop now, the annoying "copy and paste" rave reviews of Dark Knight was what completely soured me on movie reviews with the exception of one reviewer. Ebert dieing totally made me fuck off. I don't even bother with them anymore.

This is why, to this day, I always enjoyed reading Ebert even though I rarely agreed with him. He's liked movies that were technical and visual trainwrecks, while ALSO pointing out the problems. And on the flip side, he hates movies that do it "right" but still fail for being uninteresting, among other things.

His review of "Scary Movie" (IMHO) is basically a textbook on how to review a movie. And that movie was a popular punching bag at the time.

Unless a film is clearly, overwhelmingly awful, or there's some reason for me to boycott (I will never pay to see a Polanski film until he croaks, because I do not want to in any way risk financially supporting a fugitive from justice), I generally go with my gut feeling on weather I want to see it, and then try not to judge it harshly until I've seen it. Though I find that it helps to go in without really high expectations, as I'm less likely to be disappointed.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

It just gets kind of lost because the film tries to be several other things as well without being very well-constructed. For example, we don't know Bruce pre-Superman well enough for his fall and redemption to carry the weight that it might.

I think you've got a good handle on the flaws of BvS there. I'm wondering why and what positives there are that out weighs those flaws for you?

Main strengths:

-Diana's debut against Doomsday.

-Affleck as Batman.

-Some of the music (IIRC, a collaboration between Hans Zimmer, who I feel is overrated, and the guy who did Fury Road, which had some wonderful music)

-The action and stakes felt epic in a way that most superhero films don't to me.

-The basic story of Batman's fall and redemption, and how it mirrors current concerns about xenophobia and the "liberty vs. security" debate.

-It felt like the film was actually trying to seriously address what the implications to society of someone like Superman would be. Which I appreciate, since Superhero films too often end up as "just like our world, but with superheroes", which doesn't seem realistic to me. It didn't always succeed as well as it might have, but it tried.

-Some great individual moments, like Superman choosing to submit himself to Congress's authority, or Alfred's "what turns good men cruel" speech. Or Bruce in Metropolis at the beginning, which I'd say is arguably the most important moment of the film, because its the only one to give us any idea of who (adult) Bruce was before Superman showed up.

Albeit, as I said, somewhat obscured by poor plot-construction, which left the film feeling like a-loosely connected series of scenes with gaps in between.

Basically, its a Franken-movie- a film comprised of the pieces of several good movies awkwardly stitched together. Probably due to being "written by committee" without a clear guiding editorial voice, if I had to guess. So its a frustrating film, because its just good enough to hint at how much better it could have been with better script-editing, but I enjoy it nonetheless because a lot of those individual moments (and aspects of the overall arc, when you can perceive it through the mire) are really quite good.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

I will note that in JL Batman does have a pretty decent showing as Batman. He's not a particularly awesome team member, but Affleck has a few good lines ("What's your superpower?" "...I'm rich.") and does depict, fairly realistically IMO, a Batman who's nearing the end of his superhero career (bruises and all), has seen a light at the end of the tunnel, is trying to be less grim, and is somewhat on a mission to bring together the world's superheroes.

Maybe its best to just regard the DC universe films as a Batman series, also featuring other heroes?

The DC universe is pretty much the Batman series, period.

Or at least that's how it feels sometimes. I'd rather the films didn't go down that route.

The problem is, film-wise, Batman seems to be the only character they can do consistently well.* Maybe Diana now too, if you're being generous, though I haven't seen how Justice League portrays her yet. And hey, I'd also be completely okay with "The Adventures of Batfleck and Wonder Woman: The Series".

But while I understand your frustration with Batman's dominance of the DC Universe, I'd rather have a dozen decent Batman films than a dozen more diverse films of which maybe two or three are okay and the rest shit.

But I was alluding both to how Batman seems to be the strongest element of weak films (if your assessment of Justice League is correct), and arguably the main focus of Batman v Superman. So with the exception of Wonder Woman, it kind of is Batman's series, more than anybody else's.

*Mind you, there are plenty of things in Batman v Superman that show that someone on that film got Superman. Man of Steel less so, I think.

Edit: On an unrelated note, regarding your comment on the bikini Amazons... yeah, fuck that. Even Snyder being a hack can't excuse it. You don't need to be brilliant or innovative to not throw continuity out the window for the sake of (sexist) fan service. That's something that only happens because someone made a choice for it to happen.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

I'm just gonna assume that everybody knows Superman was in Justice League and that they resurrect him somehow, so I'm just not gonna spoiler the following comments because I'm fairly sure they don't spoil anything:

Superman in this movie was... okay. But, he was more Superman in the whole 'force of nature as a superhero' sense, than particularly Superman as a character. He doesn't spend very much time (IMO) dwelling on the fact that he was, y'know, DEAD, and recovers pretty quickly. The standard post-resurrection meet-ups apply, 'are you really alive' etc. I'm surprised they didn't trot out a token family pet to say hello again. There was no real dealing with the moral/ethical implications of resurrecting him other than some foreboding comments from Aquaman and Diana (the captions got froggy in this section so I'm not 100% on what was said). And once they got into fighting, Supes just wipes the floor with everybody. He doesn't seem particularly challenged by anybody. Realistic? ...yeah, insofar as Superman goes, but storywise, not very compelling.

I wouldn't call that bad story-telling from the description, exactly. Nothing overtly offensive or continuity-breaking. Just... shallow. Not fully-realized.

Mediocre.

Which, if they wanted to focus on something else interesting, is at least understandable. If the whole film is like that, then it might be entertaining, but probably only a superficial level, and it likely won't have much re-watch value, in my opinion.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

Basically, its a Franken-movie- a film comprised of the pieces of several good movies awkwardly stitched together. Probably due to being "written by committee" without a clear guiding editorial voice, if I had to guess. So its a frustrating film, because its just good enough to hint at how much better it could have been with better script-editing, but I enjoy it nonetheless because a lot of those individual moments (and aspects of the overall arc, when you can perceive it through the mire) are really quite good.

Thanks for elaborating. I find myself in a very broad agreement though perhaps inverted. It's a film I don't like but can see it tried and had potential. primary I disliked its portrays of Superman or Batman, a redemption arc as you call it is hard to distinguish from just a bad interpretation of Batman. Still if they'd dropped the Dawn Of Justice part and the weird future flashes and actual concentrated on Batman and Superman and them overcoming their differences, I'd have been a lot happier with it.

While sure, people shouldn't get on a random internet hatedom, experience of the past films is a likely indicator of how much you might like the next films in a series, particularly when it's by the same creative team. It's also fine to say 'I didn't like this aspect of the trailers/promotion therefore I don't think I'll like it' and you've done on this and other films.

To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

I don't even think that it trying to simultaneously a Batman film, a Superman film, a Batman v Superman film, and a Justice League set-up film weakened it. Its that those elements (and all the various elements that comprised the film) weren't terribly well-integrated. That's on the script writer, or whoever was ultimately overseeing the script (probably a combination of Snyder and the execs).

I do think it was probably a mistake to do what amounts to a Batman redemption story without first giving us a more thorough introduction to Batman, yes. You have to read between the lines somewhat to get the point that Batman is a good man worn down and pushed over the edge, rather than just a borderline-sociopathic, bigoted asshole. Though that is entirely on the script/direction, and not on Affleck, who acting-wise is probably my favorite Batman to date.

To be fair and acknowledge the faults of a film I am defending, I also am bothered by the ham-fisted resolution of the conflict between Superman and Batman. They had, I felt, set up the potential for a conflict between them to emerge quite naturally from their respective positions- Bruce's anger over Metropolis and feelings of impotence and futility on the one hand, and Superman's distaste for his increasingly brutal vigilantism on the other.

So replacing that suddenly with "It was all really Lex behind it, and he takes Superman's mother hostage to force a fight to the death", came off as both a needless heavy-handed contrivance, and a (arguably sexist) woman-in-danger-to-motivate-the-hero cliché. Sure, it set up the whole "Martha" resolution at the end, but that was a pretty contrived way to resolve the conflict as well, even if it worked out okay.

Those would be the two points, plot-wise, that I'd hit the film hardest on.

As to what you say about judging films based on past works in the same series/by the same team, fair enough. For me, if the film is on par with Batman v Superman, I'll enjoy it, even as I criticize its flaws. Others may feel differently. That's fine, of course.

I'm just irritated by what seems to be a uniformly negative tone in the reviews, which is honestly more than I can recall seeing for any other not-yet-released/just-released film. It feels like people are just gleefully jumping on the chance to preemptively sink the film, and that annoys me.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

Watched it last night. Don't have the heart (or the caffeine, I haven't made my coffee yet today) to do a full review. Also missed the first twenty minutes or so due to a screw-up with the captioning devices.

Anyway. Non spoilery comments:

There were a lot of sequences where I could tell they either cut stuff that appeared in the trailers, or added stuff that wasn't in the trailers.

The characters were... kinda one-note. They had potential for depth (particularly Aquaman), but they weren't really given the opportunity to expand.

The Amazons somehow changed a chunk of their look from WW to this movie. Now it's all crop tops and leather bikinis versus, y'know, armour like they had in WW?Spoiler

So. Movie opens with a short clip of Superman, some sort of interview or something. It looks really awful. This is probably from when Henry Cavill had to do reshoots with a moustache, because there's something disgustingly digital about his face. Jump on to 'now' or whatever, in Gotham. We get to meet a Parademon. No reference back to BvS, but I suppose most people who watch JL have probably seen BvS? Due to captions not working I don't know if they said anything like 'I remember this' or whatever.

I also missed the starts of Cyborg and Flash, but I don't think I lost much. Cyborg is pretty much just there to go from 'broody' to 'not broody' and to do technology. Flash is pure comic relief. Which, admittedly, he was actually pretty good at. Cyborg's look... didn't do a whole lot for me. It's blatantly obvious that it was done by the actor wearing a green jumpsuit and they painted it on top of him in the computer. I mean. I get that practical effects for the Cyborg character would've been difficult. I get that they do the exact same thing for Iron Man. But the difference is, you can totally buy that Iron Man is wearing real armour. Cyborg just looks like this... wispy digital figure with a weirdly merged half-human face. Granted, they've been making digital Iron Man armour for nearly 10 years, they've had plenty of time to get pretty good at it. IIRC there was a scene in one of the trailers where an Iron Man style mask drops down over Cyborg's face... I suspect that was cut because it was just too blatant.

Flash... has a few good lines. His really cheesy expressions also work fairly well for the character. His sole moment of character growth though is pretty much 'I can't fight... I can save people though, let's do that'. And... yeah... I guess he's okay? He's not terribly impressive as a character, to be frank. But as part of the movie, he was a highlight.

Aquaman starts the movie out as a grumpy drunk loner. He ends the movie as a somewhat surly surfer dude. Amusingly, the captions device described his weapon as a 'fivedent'. There was a certain amount of promise in the sole Atlantis sequence. It's all vaguely referenced foreshadowing, though. Amber Heard as Mera is good looking, at least. He has enough promise for the Aquaman movie that should come out next year to be OK. At least it's not directed by Zack Snyder.

Wonder Woman barely turns a hair throughout the movie, either. There's some waffle about her not wanting to lead the group, then Batman basically forces her into it by abandoning the gang and leaving her to it.

Superman is resurrected halfway through the movie. There's the usual 'is not himself after he's resurrected' fight. The resurrection itself was ridiculously easy, seeming to basically consist of dropping a Mother Box into the resurrection pond on the Kryptonian ship with Supes' body in there. Flash had to charge up a static electric charge and zap the Mother Box, but that was about it. Superman comes back to himself pretty handily as well. There's zero indication of the black suit, bearded Superman that was hinted at during production.

Powers wise... we had the revelation that Superman is actually as fast as Flash. Barry is doing his thing where he goes into super-speed and everybody is standing still, the other three have tackled Superman, he's running up to rabbit-punch Supes or something... and Supes turns and looks at him. That was a nice moment.

Of course after that we had to have Supes and Flash racing. Later on during the big battle they're trying to save civilians. Some folks are in a truck that's dying, so Barry runs up and literally pushes it away into the distance. Then he looks over to the side, and Superman is carrying an entire apartment block away from the battle. That bit was just so Silver Age I couldn't even.

Amusing scene where Aquaman is all unloading, letting out his feelings, etc. Batman goes 'um' and Aqua realizes he's sitting on the Lasso of Truth. This is probably, more or less, the turning point for the whole 'grouchy drunk loner' to 'surfer dude' transition.

Steppenwolf was... unimpressive. While he was clearly a dangerous opponent to the rest... once Supes entered the game, he was a punching bag. But hey, we got a glimpse of an alien Green Lantern. Albeit a very brief glimpse.

Steppenwolf's end was also extremely contrived. He suddenly starts feeling fear, and the Parademons turn on him? Really? That's how it's going to go? Just like that? He's not smart enough to set it up so the Parademons won't turn on him, because he's supposed to be in control of them? Not even a throwaway line about how they only ultimately obey Darkseid, that Steppenwolf is 'given charge' of them or whatever?

That brings me to...zero mention of Darkseid (that I caught). The only hint towards him was a mention of the 'New Gods', a comment that Steppenwolf would turn worlds into a reflection of his 'home world' (presumably Apokoliops), and... that was about it. No indication of a greater universe. No threats beyond the immediate. At the end of the movie, Batman and Wonder Woman are going into the wreck of Wayne Manor and talking about laying out a table with chairs, and room for more... for what? Why?

Fixes: The harder one would be giving characters more development, but that would entail more thought, and who needs that?

The easiest is probably just throwing in a few lines about Darkseid, having a little exposition about the New Gods versus the Old. They even had a great opportunity for that when they flashed back to Steppenwolf versus Earth, had a bit in there about 'the old Gods themselves fought' or whatever. Could've had a cosmic scene with Apokoliops and a glimpse of Darkseid and his various forces. Keep the New Gods proper in the, er, dark though. You know, the nice guys like Highfather, Orion, Lightray and whatever. This gives you enough foreshadowing and a glimpse of a deeper background to open up the DC Cinematic Universe. If the Justice League is going to protect Earth, they need something to protect Earth *from*. This would also have opened up possibilities for the Green Lanterns, who are a not-insignificant part of the comics.

Darkseid was mentioned once by Steppenwolf. I believe he said he was doing it for Darkseid.

"May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places where you must walk." - Ancient Egyptian Blessing

Ivanova is always right.
I will listen to Ivanova.
I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God.
AND, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out! - Babylon 5 Mantra

The same problems are present in BvS, and in Justice League. They are endemic to Zack Snyder. Zack Snyder makes bad movies. Slapping a few Whedonisms* in there doesn't correct the core problem that the films completely fail to dramatise characters and therefore fail to make audiences strongly give a shit about them.

* Joss Whedon does not actually have a particularly strong track record with movies, he just has a lot of excuses and is good at blaming other people when they turn out shit.

I'd say the point is also that a lot of films that are seen as "bad" aren't, at least not objectively.

Sure, there are some things I would say are objectively bad- like if a film had a fascist message or something. But for the most part, it comes down to what the audience enjoys- to personal taste.

I value a well-constructed plot as much as most people, maybe more- but if a film lacks that, but has other elements that I enjoy (as Batman v Superman does), it can still come out ahead, overall.

You're contradicting yourself here a bit. Talking about Objectively bad then going into personal taste. Entertainment seems to run into both. Minions made a shitton of money. That make it a great movie?

I'd say that there's probably still a degree of genre snobiness towards superhero films in general. I'm just guessing here, but I think Marvel escapes the harshest criticisms in part because its films are usually light and fluffy-sometimes too much so-so it gets point for "not taking itself too seriously", ie, knowing its place as a series of campy, silly genre flicks.

DC's films are in a niche where they are not good enough (or well-promoted enough) to qualify as "great films" like The Dark Knight, but too serious to fall into "Escapist fun that doesn't take itself too seriously."

Reeves Supermans and Keaton Batman were big fucking deals. Keaton Batman is also why we got the Batman Animated Series. They took a more metered approach: not camp but not too grimdark.

Nicholson is an extremely camp and over the top joker, but he's also a ruthless and terrifying person. This is the same kind of performance Hamil would bring to the animated series and make The Joker a staple for a new generation of viewers.

DC has now gone the grimdark route. They want the camp gone. All of it. They are striving for realism in a genre where "haha, WTF REALISM? This guy is punching people while wearing a bat costume." And when you fuck that up, you're stuck with people in costumes fighting crime. So the absurdity sticks out immediately. Unlike in the Avengers where the inherent camp of the setting is played for laughs and overshadowed by the likability of the cast.

This is why I think Rise got so much flak, though it still made all the money. Neeson, Ledger. Neeson less so since a lot of the mysticism behind Ras was taken out. But they gave performances removing all the camp and pulled it off. Then Bane jumps on the scene and he's larger than life, monologues like a cartoon villain, and has the most comic-book-absurd plan, and that really stuck out.

Sort of my point. I'm saying that their are a few things that I would feel make a film objectively bad, but that outside that, its a matter of personal taste.

Minions made a shitton of money. That make it a great movie?

Of course not, but I'm baffled as to what point you think you're proving here.

Reeves Supermans and Keaton Batman were big fucking deals. Keaton Batman is also why we got the Batman Animated Series. They took a more metered approach: not camp but not too grimdark.

Fair enough. I'm not old enough to personally recall the critical response to those films when they came out, though I have seen an enjoyed both (Batman more than Superman, which I feel was a bit too silly for my tastes).

Nicholson is an extremely camp and over the top joker, but he's also a ruthless and terrifying person. This is the same kind of performance Hamil would bring to the animated series and make The Joker a staple for a new generation of viewers.

DC has now gone the grimdark route. They want the camp gone. All of it. They are striving for realism in a genre where "haha, WTF REALISM? This guy is punching people while wearing a bat costume." And when you fuck that up, you're stuck with people in costumes fighting crime. So the absurdity sticks out immediately. Unlike in the Avengers where the inherent camp of the setting is played for laughs and overshadowed by the likability of the cast.

As far as realism is concerned, I guess it depends on what you mean by "realism". Of course someone like Superman does things that are physically impossible in the real world, but you can still tell a "realistic" story about how those exceptional abilities affect the world, how people react to Superman, etc.

When I advocate realism in SF, I'm talking about continuity, carefully considering the implications and consequences of your premise given the internal logic of the setting, and realistic character reactions. These are all generally virtues in a film in my opinion, regardless of how dark or light its tone is.

And yeah, realism, like seriousness (and the two are not the same thing) can be done well or badly, of course.

This is why I think Rise got so much flak, though it still made all the money. Neeson, Ledger. Neeson less so since a lot of the mysticism behind Ras was taken out. But they gave performances removing all the camp and pulled it off. Then Bane jumps on the scene and he's larger than life, monologues like a cartoon villain, and has the most comic-book-absurd plan, and that really stuck out.

To be fair, Ledger's Joker was always going to be a really tough act to follow, and I wonder if Bane got judged more harshly than he deserved because of that.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

I saw it on Thanksgiving with a friend. It's all right, probably because I came in with low expectations. Nowhere near as good as Wonder Woman, but I enjoyed it. Villain was rather weak storywise, and is only around to eventually lead to Darkseid.

Hope DC finds it's feet, as this was leagues better than Man of Steel or Batman vs Superman.

I saw it on Thanksgiving with a friend. It's all right, probably because I came in with low expectations. Nowhere near as good as Wonder Woman, but I enjoyed it. Villain was rather weak storywise, and is only around to eventually lead to Darkseid.

Hope DC finds it's feet, as this was leagues better than Man of Steel or Batman vs Superman.

I agree. It seems like it's finally headed in the right direction, but it's still living in the shadow of what came before (Not just Marvel, but the Animated Series which covered this plot before, and Wonder Woman).

Of the DCEU films I've seen (all but Man of Steel), this is easily the second best. But it's still about an average film with only a few standout moments.

Only things that really bothered me were:

- Amazons being used largely as cannon fodder. I hate when it happens in the comics, and the movies don't make it better.
- The continued implication that Diana did nothing from the end of WWI to the appearance of Doomsday.
- Steppenwolf being just a bland, dumb, lump of gray. We already had one of those. We don't need another.
- The unecessary change of the Mother Boxes that utterly screws over some basic New Gods stuff.

There were some structural problems I had as well, but those minor points stung more for me.

ISARMA: Daikaiju Coordinator: Just Add RadiationJustice League- Molly Hayes: Respect Hats or Freakin' Else!BrowncoatSupernatural Taisen - "[This Story] is essentially "Wouldn't it be awesome if this happened?" Followed by explosions."

Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.

"God! Are you so bored that you enjoy seeing us humans suffer?! Why can't you let this poor man live happily with his son! What kind of God are you, crushing us like ants?!" - Kyoami, Ran

Spoiler warning
I enjoyed JL more than a lot of reviewers apparently did, because I found myself interested in the characters. I would have preferred basically a setup movie, showing the characters interacting, training, etc., and ending with a surprise appearance of -- uh-oh! -- Lex Luthor.

One thematic element that I appreciated was that Batman realizes that he himself needs the (semi-divine) inspiration of Superman. Moved by the example set by Clark Kent returning to the family farm, Bruce Wayne comes up out of his hole in the ground to return to his boyhood home.

"If you had fought like a man, you would not have had to die like a dog."
-said the swashbuckling Anne Bonney to her pirate lover "Calico" Jack Rackham, as he was awaiting the gallows in a Nassau jail. Only Bonney and one other crew member were left on deck fighting during a sea battle with authorities in which Rackham surrendered.

That fits since, as I said previously, Batman v Superman was essentially the story of Batman's fall and redemption, with Superman as the Christ-like redeemer who dies for our sins (and then gets resurrected).

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

Tepid underwhelming movie. Waste of time. The only silver lining is that we're finally over this, we're finally THROUGH with Justice League, and MAYBE we can get other things out of DC/WB. It's not something to anticipate, IMO it's a hurdle to get past.

"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZookShroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medicPink Sugar Heart Attack!

Tepid underwhelming movie. Waste of time. The only silver lining is that we're finally over this, we're finally THROUGH with Justice League, and MAYBE we can get other things out of DC/WB. It's not something to anticipate, IMO it's a hurdle to get past.

That's if they continue with the DCEU. Its box office thus far has been anemic (again) and they really needed this to fly past the billion mark.

Personally I've cooled right off the whole thing - it's screamingly apparent they lack cohesion, direction and the proper kind of care it takes to craft a franchise as massive as they were aiming for. If they cancelled the entire thing, I wouldn't be too upset. The Timm animated universe provided a perfect blueprint for a live action continuity, but they decided to try and create a Frankenstein's monster of the storylines and comics the suits thought the fans wanted instead. They fucked up Luthor and Joker, turned Supes' death into a cheap set-up for Justice League, made Batman a murdering psycho, etc, etc.

Okay, rant over. I'm gonna hold out hope for a full-blooded Justice League TV series in the next decade or so - Legends of Tomorrow has proved it's doable, if they ramped up the production values (partner with HBO or something, I dunno) they could knock such a thing out of the park.

Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?

- Raw Shark

Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent.